The case addressed whether services like rent-a-cab, catering, and business support qualify as input services for SEZ refund claims. The Tribunal held they are eligible for refunds when used in authorised operations, reinforcing prior rulings.
Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax and accordingly, set aside the entire demand as time barred.
The Tribunal held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proving intent to evade tax. Since no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement was established, the demand was time-barred. The key takeaway is that limitation cannot be stretched merely due to audit findings.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charge of clandestine removal of goods cannot be proved on the basis of private records recovered during the course of investigation in the absence of any corroborative evidence in support. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that electrical repair services provided to governmental entities is exempt from payment of service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that the Department failed to prove that goods classified as trading were actually manufactured by the assessee. In absence of proper investigation, excise demand and penalties were held unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that coal extraction and processing constitute manufacture, not mining services, making service tax demand unsustainable and reinforcing mutual exclusivity of tax levies.
The Tribunal held that including income from scrap sale, already subject to excise duty, in service tax valuation would lead to double taxation. It ruled that such addition is not permissible and set aside the demand.
The Tribunal ruled that when customs authorities had examined and accepted the classification earlier, suppression of facts cannot be alleged. The extended period of limitation was therefore held to be invalid.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to clarify whether import of fabrics was permitted under the Letter of Permission. The ruling highlights the impact of unclear authorizations on exemption claims.
